Need an IPSC production gun - a little conflicted

I'm in the habit of using safeties every time I'm not firing . It was also the way I was taught, old school I guess. It never puts me in conflict with IPSC rules as I understand them.
8.1.2.3 “Selective action” – Chamber loaded hammer fully down or decocked, or chamber loaded, hammer cocked with external safety applied.
8.1.2.4 For all self-loading pistols, the term “external safety” means the primary visible safety lever on the handgun (e.g. the thumb safety on a "1911" genre handgun). In the event of doubt, the Range Master is the final authority on this matter.
 
djt said:
I'm in the habit of using safeties every time I'm not firing . It was also the way I was taught, old school I guess. It never puts me in conflict with IPSC rules as I understand them.
8.1.2.3 “Selective action” – Chamber loaded hammer fully down or decocked, or chamber loaded, hammer cocked with external safety applied.
8.1.2.4 For all self-loading pistols, the term “external safety” means the primary visible safety lever on the handgun (e.g. the thumb safety on a "1911" genre handgun). In the event of doubt, the Range Master is the final authority on this matter.
Click to expand...

using the safety wont interfere with saftey rules, but if you are using a CZ and have the safety on at load and make ready that means the hammer is back and you are shooting standard not production which is an issue if you are trying to shoot production. putting the gun into double action by lowering the hammer your safety is the double action pull (think sig, hk)
 
Slavex said:
Failing to understand how the external safeties on a Shadow are a disadvantage as you don't actually use them in Production.
Click to expand...

Failure to understand must be prevented at all costs. ;)



Slavex said:
yes.


I've shot many 1911's with pinned safeties and ones with similar or perhaps even actual Novak replacements for the grip safety. Much nicer to shoot. But I still love a double action first shot. Doesn't hurt me for speed, I can keep up to pretty much anyone with a SA trigger no problem, both speed of first shot and accuracy wise. I actually hate safeties on handguns, decockers I don't mind, safeties I hate, hence the reason I run flush ones on my Shadow. I know however that on a 1911 you don't really have any choice, which is why I don't own a 1911, and probably never will. And don't even bother mentioning the LDA, that is just a bunch of suck put into mechanical form....
Click to expand...
 
nicely done, I guess I should have clarified I was referring to Production guns where we don't use the safeties for anything. 1911's you have to use them, and I hate that.
 
Canuck223 said:
Agreed. I'm half tempted to install the DAO plugs on my Grand Powers just for the clean flat side. If it's not a decent thumb shelf in the right spot, than it's just a speed bump.
Click to expand...
Don't even think about it. See here...
http://ipsc.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=16729&hl=

While I was chatting with EG, a problem came to light during the Pre-Match Gun Check, thanks to the sharp eyes of IROA CRO Ronny Bergstrom from IPSC Sweden, so he asked me to make a call about a Grand Power X-Calibur. When it was originally approved, the model had a thumb safety, but the one presented at the gun-check had plugs where the thumb safety would normally be inserted.

I was not only obliged to reject the gun for Production Division, I had to entirely ban it from the match, in all divisions.
An SA/DA (or SAO) gun with an external hammer must have a thumb safety. You have been warned!
Click to expand...
 
BeerBaron said:
How does the Sig 226 work in this? External hammer... no safety...
Click to expand...
But it has a decocker - in the world of common sense - I'd call that equivalent to the external safety.

And before some aspiring range lawyer wants to play exact-word games and try to argue - I'm just passing on the info to save someone from a bump to open or worse. I don't care one way or the other.
 
Freedom Ventures said:
But it has a decocker - in the world of common sense - I'd call that equivalent to the external safety.

And before some aspiring range lawyer wants to play exact-word games and try to argue - I'm just passing on the info to save someone from a bump to open or worse. I don't care one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, wasn't trying to argue specifics, and I appreciate you posting the link, it just seems like a bit of a strange ruling. I have been shooting IPSC for a few years now in production and have never once used the safety on my shadow (aside from as a thumb rest while shooting). Why require a feature that is of no use in that division?
 
after much reading....when comparing the shadow and tanfo guns...I don't think anything is decided 'hands down'

I will know better early next year
 
Just wanted to confirm before I order parts for my glock 17

I am allowed to add extended mag, slide releases as long as it's OEM glock. Correct?

From ipsc rule book
Original parts and components offered by the OFM as standard equipment, or as an option, for a specific model handgun on the IPSC approved handgun list are permitted, subject to the following:
Modifications to them, other than minor detailing (the removal of burrs and/or adjustments unavoidably required in order to fit replacement OFM parts or components), are prohibited. Other prohibited modifications include those which facilitate faster reloading (e.g. flared, enlarged and/or add-on magwells, etc.), changing the original color and/or finish of a handgun, and/or adding stripes or other embellishments.
 
Slavex said:
Failing to understand how the external safeties on a Shadow are a disadvantage as you don't actually use them in Production.
Click to expand...

I love the nice big thumb rest that the safety provides. A buddy has a flat safety on his and he loves it. I tried it and wasn't a fan. I like my thumb rest.
 
Onagoth said:
after much reading....when comparing the shadow and tanfo guns...I don't think anything is decided 'hands down'

I will know better early next year
Click to expand...

I had both. I still have the Tanfoglio in 9MM with a 40cal top end. The Tanfoglio has a nicer grip in my mind than the CZ and the CZ has one of the nicest grips found in a gun. o The Tanfoglio uses a shorter mainspring located differently than the CZ allowing the grip to be undercut deeper where the webbing of your hand resides. My Tanfoglio is the 5`L model. Not as fancy as the higher end guns but it does the job for me. I have over 10K through the 9MM and about 5K through the .40cal and the frame to slide fit is as tight as it was when it was new. Incidentally I moved the CZ Shadow for another gun I wanted. The CZ served me well and was as accurate and reliable as the Tanfoglio. Both are excellent guns.

Take Care

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom